tv Jansing and Co. MSNBC January 29, 2013 10:00am-11:00am EST
and right now the president is in the air, flying t las vegas. this afternoon, in a major speech, he will tackle immigration reform. not getting it passed is something he calls the biggest regret of his first term. now, first, he is expected to praise a bipartisan group of senators who presented their plan yesterday. >> a set of principles put forward by this bipartisan group, embraces the path to citizenship. this is a big deal. this is an important development. >> but it appears these eight senators didn't want to follow the president's big speech, so they raced to make their announcement first. and late word this morning that the president, not wanting to rock the boat, will embrace the senate plan. now, whatever the timing, it could be a changing electorate that really is going to help get results. >> the politics on this issue have been turned upside down. for the first time ever, there's more political risk in opposing immigration reform than in
supporting it. >> elections. elections. the republican party is losing the support of our hispanic citizens. and we realize that there are many issues in which we think we are in agreement with our hispanic citizens, but this is a preeminent issue with those citizens. >> i want to bring in raul raez, "usa today" columnist, and david knack mori. david, you wrote about the president laying out a more liberal plan, but dan pfeiffer just tweeted this, "potus will applaud the bipartisan senate agreement that is very consistent with his long he would view and lay out his vision for immigration reform." so is this a sign the president doesn't want to threaten what is cereal a pretty fragile coalition? and that he may be willing to go more centrist today? >> absolutely, chris. i think it's a little bit complicated, in that the white house wants to stress a lot of the progress that's been made by
the senate. they said very clearly, they're going to praise that. they do like a lot of the tenants. in fact, they say a lot of the tenants of what the senate laid out, the main pillars, including a path to citizenship are what the white house itself has on its website. but they have told advocates that they don't support some of the ideas the senate has put out there, like tying a path to citizenship to increased border security that would be determined by a panel of southwest governors and attorney generals, because that would potentially slow the process down and make it unclear for those 11 million undocumented immigrants as to when it's going to happen, and, you know, would this panel agree. that's one major issue. the other one is the president supports including gay and lesbian couples, of which one of the family members is not a u.s. citizen, as having same protections for heterosexual couples who are in the same position. those are other things, whether the president lays them out or not, those are things to keep an eye on going forward.
>> as we're looking at these photos from yesterday, one of the people involved in this, marco rubio, the president has not reached out to him and mitch mcconnell is already warning the president about the tone of his speech today, you know, saying he can't get too strident. and "the wall street journal" wrote this morning, "many democrats want to use the immigration issue to drive turnout in election after election. their goal is to have a legislative dance and then blame republicans for killing reform some time in 2014. mr. obama will have to decide if he wants a legacy of reform or more partisanship." and i'm wondering, raul, is him getting involved, and the way in which he gets involved, very tricky for him? >> yes, it is tricky. but at the same time, he has to get involved. one of the things that latino voters, one of the key reasons they turned out in record numbers is that they wanted immigration reform, they wanted to see the president do something. and there has been some criticism of him in the path, particularly around health care, that he was somewhat aloof in the process. he didn't step in and lead.
67% of back a path to citizenship. while just 46% of whites do. is one of the keys for the president, david, going to be what he's kind of doing successfully on a number of other fronts, which is to just go out and sell this to the american people? he believes public opinion can move some of these senators who may be more centrist around the fence about this. >> yes, chris, the white house really stressed this idea, that they've learned over the first term, that's the best way. to explain it to the people, where you're starting from, where the president wants to go, why, what the stakes are, and who stands to benefit. and you know, it's not just a situation for those immigrants who are facing this, but for the economy and businesses want it in some ways, a more clearer sense of what the rules are. so they're going to go out and do that. they believe that the public opinion is generally on the president's side, and by going out to these different locations like las vegas, where there's a large contingent in that state of hispanic voters supporting the president, that they're going to continue to sort of make progress in keeping this issue alive and keeping pressure
on congress. >> and they're being very careful about how they talk about this. i mean, they're getting talking points about how you approach these kinds of issues, what words you use, everybody's running away from the possibility that this is amnesty. and let me play for you what mccain and schumer said on "morning joe" today. >> this is not amnesty. it is a tough path to citizenship, but it is an opportunity. and they get in line between -- behind everyone who has come to this country legally. >> you have to work. you have to pay taxes. you're going to pay a fine. there'll be some admission of wrongdoing. so it is not amnesty in any sense of the word. >> the other side of that is it's a tough path to citizenship. they're just not going to say to you, you've been here so you can stay. there are going to be rules about paying back taxes, admitting guilt. is that going to be too tough for some progressives to stomach? >> well, i think there are two challenges here. one is to get past the toxicity
of the "a" word, amnesty. and the president and the democrats really need to sell, as the senator mentioned, this is not amnesty. it is earned citizenship, involving the back taxes, fines, having to learn english, and to get in line behind legal immigrants. >> and one of the things chuck schumer pointed out this morning on "morning joe," is that if you actually applied that you get -- you go to the front of the line, ahead of people who never tried to take the legal path. >> right. but the challenge for the republicans, they have to sell this within their own party. not as amnesty, but they just need to make a very practical case -- >> a political argument. >> this is good for their party. it gets them on the right side of demographics. it gets them on the right side of how america is changing, what the people want. i saw an associated press poll that showed that 62% of americans favor some path to citizenship. so they need to sell it that way, as a way for the republican party to maintain their standing as a major party, a relevant party, and a national party. >> let me bring in congresswoman loretta sanchez. always good to see you, congresswoman, good morning. >> good morning, chris.
>> based on that tweet we saw this morning from the white house, it looks like the president is going to back the senate plan. is this something that you could endorse, or do you think it doesn't go far enough. that it makes the path too difficult? >> well, this issue is always in the details, what do they mean by that? and you know, this is a marathon. it's not going to be a short sprint to try to get this done. it's going to require that we bring in the house members also. i want to say that a majority of the democrats have wanted this for a long time. we're ready to go. the very few democrat s who hav been uneasy about it have been those who still believe that their constituents, that the people that they represent, may not be very happy or may not understand this. but the majority of democrats in the house really want to get this done, we want to get it done sooner rather than later. we want to bring house republicans along. that's why, i believe, the senate went first. and so it really is about the details. >> so you're not worried so much
about your republican colleagues? are you worried about your republican colleagues in the house? >> well, yes, of course. we have seen in things over and over, whether it's the debt ceiling or sequestration or what have you, that they have dragged their feet. that they have had a particular group of people within their own conference that has pulled back from making deals. so, you know, people continue to say that this is a political issue. it's not really a applyipolitic issue. it's the right thing for america. and i think a majority of americans have come to realize that from a family values standpoint, we need to keep our families united, those who have been working in our community for a long time. for me, from a homeland security perspective, sitting on the homeland security committee, i would rather have these people be taken care of, understand who they are, be in line, have visas and allow people to come to this country to work if we need more
workers. and really concentration my homeland security resources on those people who really mean to do us harm. >> well, you do know that one of the proposals here, and it relates to homeland security, is that this should be tied to stricter border security, although -- well, let me play for you first what your colleague, marshall blackburn had to say about that. >> item number one has to be a secure border. the american people are sick of what they're hearing about human trafficking, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking. let's end illegal entry into this country, regardless of what that entry is. >> congressman, john mccain also reiterated this morning, that he felt that the administration had not done a good job with border security, and that's why it was important that these were tied together. do you agree with that? >> well, i have actually sat on the homeland security committee and chaired the border security subcommittee. and i would say that both of
these, especially miss blackburn, she doesn't sit on that committee. she hasn't really taken a look at what we've done. i'll give you an example. in just the last seven years, we've ireased our border patrol from about 5,000 people to about 22,000 people. the majority of those people sit on the southern border. but the reality is that terrorists have come across the northern border. that's where we stop them. like the millennium bomber, who wanted to come to my area and bomb l.a.x. so we have to -- if we have to hire more border patrol, as mr. mccain, in that group of eight has said, then, you know, we need to worry about the northern border. we need to worry about our coastline. that's really what i'm worried about when i look at homeland security. with respect to deporting people who have been here, who have been criminals, there has been nobody more strident about that than president obama. in fact, really upsetting many
of the immigrant communities, not just the hispanic community, but many of the immigrant communities, because he has been so steadfast in making sure that people were deported. he has pushed very hard, back on employers, who knowingly employed people who don't have the correct documents. so he has been on the forefront. he has been listening to what we have said on the homeland security committee. is there more we can do? yes, there is. but we will never, we will never have a fence, especially with all the coastline that we have, maine and florida and puerto rico and hawaii and the virginia islands and the coast of california -- we will never have -- we will never have enough border security. and that's one of the reasons why we shouldn't really tie that to these families who want to be here, who have been here. they're pta moms, they volunteer in the classroom for not just their child, but all children in
that classroom. >> congresswoman, i have to let that be the last word. >> they have been part of our american fabric. >> it is always good to have you on the program. congresswoman loretta sanchez, thank you very much. and i just want to pick up on what she had to say, because the pushback on that, obviously, raul, the story in "the new york times," they're sitting in a diner in greenville, south carolina, they want illegals put on a bus and sent home. lamar smith, the republican said that when you legalize those who are in the country illegally, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars, costs american workers thousands of jobs, encourages more illegal immigration. are you ever going to get some of the republicans in some of these districts to agree to any of this? >> i think -- listen, you're talking to a hard-core optimist, so i think they can. because the democrats and the president need to make the case about bringing these people into the economy will strengthen our economy. it will make it easier for people to get work, because the undocumented population won't be
competing with american workers at lower wages. it will strengthen our economy and bring in more money. there's a very strong economic case to be made here. and i have to reiterate what the congresswoman said here. it's the right thing to do. we have no other option at this point and it's time to take action. so they're on the right path. >> david, let me bring this full circle. has the ground shifted enough? in the end, how tough of a fight is this going to be? >> i think there are going to be some fights over some of the specifics that we just talked about. but i think in the end, the republicans see it as a lot of support there and they are going to be able to probably isolate those folks who still do not support it in a way that will probably make it palatable in the end to the house. again, the devil's in the details, so we need to see more. but i think, ultimately, both sides, it does seem like the time is now over the next several months. >> david nakamura, raul reyes, great to see you both. and we just got word that the senate foreign relations committee has approved the nomination of john kerry to be the next secretary of state.
the nomination could be on the senate floor for a full vote this afternoon. and also developing right now, nbc news has confirmed that transportation secretary ray lahood will be leaving the obama administration. lahood says it's been an honor and privilege to serve adds secretary. he plans to stay on until his successor is confirmed. he's pushed a plan to curb distracted driving and pilot fatigue and supports high-speed rail. but he's the only republican left in the obama administration right now. don't. they have magnesium. for effective relief of occasional constipation. thanks. [ phillips' lady ] live the regular life. phillips'. thor gets great rewards for his small business! your boa! [ garth ] thor's small business earns double miles on every purchase, every day! ahh, the new fabrics. put it on my spark card. ow. [ garth ] why settle for less? the spiked heels are working. wait! [ garth ] great businesses deserve great rewards. [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with double miles
or 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? [ cheers and applause ] something this delicious could only come from nature. new nectresse. the 100% natural no-calorie sweetener made from the goodness of fruit. new nectresse. sweetness naturally. new nectresse. i have obligations. cute tobligations, but obligations.g. i need to rethink the core of my portfolio.
what i really need is sleep. introducing the ishares core, building blocks for the heart of your portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.
americans fed up with the inability of congress to get a budget passed, take heart. the senate is expected to approve the no budget, no pay act this week as part of the debt ceiling bill. the legislation would require both the house and senate to set a budget by april 15th or members will not get paid. the house passed the measure with bipartisan support last week. i'm joined now by david walker,
president of the come back america initiative and cofounder of the no labels movement, which originally proposed the no budget, no pay idea. good to see you. good morning. >> good to be with you. >> so you've pushed this no budget, no pay act since 2011, and now that it could pass this week, explain what you hope to accomplish. >> we hope to accomplish for the first time in four years, where the house, the senate, and the president will all have budgets on the table, which hopefully will facilitate a more honest and full discussion and debate about what do we need to do to put the finances of this country in order, because they're poor and deteriorating. >> do you think that people are surprised to learn that that hasn't happened? >> well, i think a lot of people are surprised to learn that there's only one thing in the constitution that the congress is supposed to do every year. and that is pass timely appropriations bills, guided by a budget. i'm 61 years old. they've only done it four times in 61 years. that's an f-minus. you need to provide the right
incentives, transparency and accountability mechanisms and this is a step in the right direction, although the legislation we were seeking would do much more, and hopefully can be enacted later in the year. >> as you know, there are people who question about whether this no pay is the right way to go. the senate is often referred to as a millionaire's club, but critics have argued the legislation puts senators who have more modest means, and there are some of them, at a disadvantage over wealthy lawmakers. in fact, maine senator susan collins says, "i don't know that it's really fair to members that do not have significant means and have no control whether a budget is brought to the floor or not." so my question is, does this legislation punish less well-to-do lawmakers, who in truth, have little or no influence over whether this actually gets done. it often rests with the leadership. >> look, the fact is is that they decided to run for the senate or the house. the senate and the house need to do their job, just like every other american. if they don't do their job, they shouldn't get paid. and quite frankly, they ought to put pressure on their leadership
to get a budget. look, it's unacceptable the kind of action that we're getting from congress. it's just absolutely out of control. this country has got serious problems that are not being taken seriously. and you know, yes, some don't have as much means, but then they should rethink about whether they want to be in office. >> well, that's the question, i think, that's also being raised, will it discourage people who may not have those means from running, because they're afraid they may not get paid? >> no, because the fact is, the mere threat of no budget, no pay caused the senate to have a budget for the first time in four years, and i can tell you with virtual certainty, they would not have had a budget but for this. so it had the right kind of impact. but quite frankly, we need a tougher bill. senator heller, senator manchin are sponsors a bill that would be tougher for the next congress so we don't face constitutional challenges. >> david walker, good to have you on the program. thank you. >> good to be with you. as early as next week, the
national board of boy scouts could bend to ongoing pressure and drop its policy that excludes gays. instead, loop troop sponsors would have the freedom to decide whether to maintain that prooli. a spokesman for the boy scouts says 70% of troops are affiliated with some sort of church or religious group and that could complicate those decisions.
to politics now, where the president says he will sign an emergency relief bill for victims of superstorm sandy as soon as it hits his desk. the senate passed the $50.5 billion package yesterday, three months after the hurricane destroyed the coasts of new york and new jersey. mitch mcconnell could be in trouble. he's up for re-election next year, and a new poll shows people there are waiting to see who will challenge him. just 17% of registered voters will absolutely support him. 34% say they'll vote against him. 44% are waiting to check out the opponent. and speaking of polls, who should play hillary clinton in a
movie about her life? okay, there's a new cbs/"vanity fair" poll. 6% said kirsten dunst, she's only 30. 7% chose helen mirren, she's british, 8%, susan sarandon, who's known for being political, and jumping up to 18%, people chose glen close, but a whopping 40% chose meryl streep. they snapped this self-portrait at the kennedy center benefit back in december. the president congratulated the nba champions, the miami heat at the white house yesterday, including lebron james. >> a few of them were here a couple years ago, for a pickup game on my birthday. now, i'm not trying to take all the credit, coach, but i think that it's clear that going up against me prepared them to take on kevin duran and russell westbrook. >> and if you read only one thing this morning, maybe you did it as a kid, but as an
adult, would you pay to eat dirt? one high-end restaurant has a $110 menu devoted to dirt, described as, quote, volcanic ashes mixed with soil and plant as that good bacteria, healthy minerals, and is natural and pure. read all about it and bon appetit. it's up on our facebook page at facebo facebook/jansingco. [ male announcer ] when these come together,
tomato soup from campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. five days later, i had a massive heart attack. bayer aspirin was the first thing the emts gave me. now, i'm on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. [ woman ] learn from my story. well, this didn't take long. just days before she leaves the state department, the first hillary clinton 2016 super pac has formed. ready for hillary has filed with the fec and already has nearly 50,000 followers on twitter. right now, clinton is holding her 59th and final town hall meeting as secretary of state. friday is her last day and she's leaving with a nice parting gift. "bloomberg businessweek" reports that top obama donors -- obama donors -- paid off her remaining 2008 campaign debt with a check for $250,000.
let's bring in democratic strategist and pollster, marji omara, and johnny collegio, as well as former press secretary for the national republican congressional committee. good morning. >> good morning, chris. >> so first you have hillary clinton's joint interview with the president on "60 minutes," it was described be many people as a lovefest. we're learning his top campaign donors paid off her outstanding campaign debt. what's going on here, marji? is this a passing of the torch, joe biden notwithstanding? >> i think it shows a lot of overlapping support for the president for senator clinton, for secretary clinton. and i think that comes as no surprise. i mean, he's really relied on her in her position as secretary, just like he's relied on vice president biden, who's had a lot of strong successes and clear accomplishments in the last few months. and i think that all of this is consistent in and a good foundation for whatever secretary clinton decides to do next >> and let's look at this super pac, jonathan, because you work
for a very powerful one. how significant is it that two longtime supporters have already formed this new ready for hillary super pac, and how much is american crossroads spending on research already? >> that's a little bit premature on our part. i think it shows a couple things. first, i think that people think that she's going to run. remember, the super pac can't talk to the candidates. i don't think that there's any inside information going on there. but all signs point to someone who, you know, when the presidential ambition is with you, it's a very, very difficult thing to slate. a lot of people think she's going to run. and we also know that super pacs can be extremely effective in primaries. when you look at mitt romney's super pac, and how they were able to kind of take out all these candidates over the course of the 2012 primaries, it can be a very, very effective thing. i don't know how much this group is going to raise, but if they are -- if it ends up being the official hillary super pac, it could be a force to be reckoned with. >> and i also wonder, margie, if this super pac does very well, very early, gets a lot of money, maybe other super pacs form, if that could be part of her
decision-making process, if it could push her toward an affirmative decision. >> it's possible. i think hillary clinton has a lot of things to think over. she has a well-deserved break ahead of her. and what's great about hillary clinton is that whether she decides in the next few months or in a year or in a year and a half, she's going to be a strong candidate regardless. she's going to be able to raise money. she's obviously incredibly well known, polls show she's incredibly well liked. and by contrast, when you look at candidate who is start much later, who don't have that national profile, that late start, they can't ever get off the ground. whether it's rick perry or jon huntsman, they just can't ever get there. so regardless of the timeline, i think clinton is going to be incredibly strong position. >> speaking of who has a national profile, of course, it's not all about hillary clinton. joe biden has been building his brand. there has been a lot written about this. he's spearheading the president's gun violence task force. he did help close the deal on the fiscal cliff debate. now, his poll numbers aren't quite as high as hillary
clinton's, but i'm wondering, jonathan, as you look at it from the other side, how strong a candidate you think he would be. what about a possible dance between he and hillary clinton? do i get in, don't i get in? >> i would expect at least one if not both of them to run. they're both, obviously, very ambitious people. they've been very, very close to the seat of power. the issue that's going to be the weakness for both of them, quite honestly, is going to be generational. if you were to pair biden or clinton against rubio or paul ryan, you would have between a 25 to 30-year difference in age between these candidates. >> yeah, she turns 69 in 2016, he will be 74. >> and both rubio and ryan were born in '70 and '70, respective. you could have a two-generation difference if it were rubio against biden. and for a country moving forward, i think that's going to be a very, very difficult sell, if it never comes out in a campaign. >> or will it be, margie, experience matters? >> i think there's a lot more to
how young voters make their decision other than the age of the candidates. and certainly, both vice president biden and secretary clinton bring so much to the table in terms of reaching out to younger voters, latinos, women, all of the various demographic groups that republicans have really, really struggled with over the last few elections and are likely to continue to have a struggle with. and vice president biden, you know, he was able to make the swearing in look cool, after his great vice presidential debate and his work on the fiscal cliff. so, you know, he's able to connect with voters and really get people engaged and have some humor that i think gives him an added advantage with younger voters too. >> jonathan, who would republicans rather run against? >> oh, that's a tough question. i think that biden at 74, you have the oldest presidential candidate ever, hillary clinton would be the second oldest after ronald reagan. so i think either of those would really present an opportunity, especially for -- you know, the other thing it does, among democrats, it could create a problem for the leaders coming
up in the party if they're not willing to step aside and let other leaders come up. i could see some potential weakness in a general under those circumstances. >> how much do you think, margie, hillary clinton, i mean, she's obviously been through more than a few situations where she's been attacked, whether you're going back to white water or her health care, and of course, benghazi, i think we saw in the hearings, what a lot of the attack would be from republicans. is that a reason to hesitate? and could any of those stick? >> look, i think if anyone's been able to weather challenges in the press, challenges from the right, challenges from the left, it's hillary clinton. and if she wants to, you know, if she wants to run for president, i think she knows full well what the climate will be like and what kind of criticism she might face, what kind of attacks she might face. right now she's incredibly popular, with republicans, with republican elected officials, with republican voters overall across america. right now, she is incredible ly
popular. so she's in a really good place to think this over and move forward, if she wants to. >> and i do wonder, jonathan, if that was a decision made by whoever running against her, on trm side, if that doesn't sound too old. if voters who don't seem to have a lot of patience for not moving forward anyway at this point, you know, you start talking about those kinds of things, they'll wonder, hasn't this been litigated already? can we talk about where the country's going ahead? i mean, could that really be used against her? >> i don't know that it would be an explicit issue in the campaign. i definitely think it would be something in people's minds. and i do know just because you're qualified to be president, we have two very, very qualified people to be president there. that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be the best candidate. there's a difference between governing and campaigning, as we all know. and that's really, i think, the question. is how good of a candidate either of them would be on the trail at that point. >> on the record, jonathan collegio said they're both well qualified. >> doesn't sound like he wants to run against either of them. >> thank you, jonathan, thank you, margie. >> a program note for you, our
own andrea mitchell will sit down with secretary of state clinton for an interview coming up tomorrow, 1:00 p.m. eastern, right here on msnbc. also making news this morning, new details emerging as family members prepare for funerals of 231 people who died in sunday's nightclub fire in brazil. witnesses say there were no fire alarms, sprinklers, or even fire escapes. the club reportedly had only one exit. meantime, police have temporarily arrested four people, including one of the owners of that nightclub. in egypt, the army chief says the country could, quote, collapse if violence continues. at least 56 people are dead in the latest anti-government protest, which is going on despite declaration of curfew and a state of emergency in three provinces. the unrest started last week on the second anniversary of the uprising that overthrew former president, hosni mubarak. a soldier who lost all four limbs in a roadside bombing in iraq now has two new arms following a double transplant. 26-year-old brendan morocco will show off his arms at a news
conference in the next hour. those transplants are only the seventh double hand or double arm transplants ever done in the united states. severe flooding has killed four people and forced thousands of others from their homes in the northeast of australia. all from a tropical cyclone, churning just off the coast. another affect of the storm, the sea is whipping up massive amounts of foam, covering beaches and even streets. in some areas, look at these pictures, the foam is 10 feet deep. more trouble for jailed former football great, jonlg simpson. tmz reports simpson owes more than $500,000 in back taxes. according to the report, the irs has just slapped him with another tax lien. that is the third time in the last 12 months. bailout rage returns. cnbc's mandy drury is here with what's moving your money. and at a time where most workers would be happy to get any kind of raise, big pay hikes still going out to companies that got billions of dollars in taxpayer
bailouts. >> that's right, chris. according to a watchdog report this morning, the treasury department ignored its own guidelines on executive pay at firms that received taxpayer bailouts. and last year approved compensation packages of over $3 million for senior execs at companies like general motors, allied financial, and aig. now, apparently, the government's pay czar signed off on $6.2 million in raises for 18 employees at those three companies. and the ceo of a division at aig received a $1 million pay raise. an exec at gm's troubled european union was also given a $100,000 pay raise. and in another instance, chris, apparently an employee at allied's residential capital was awarded a $200,000 pay raise, just weeks before the subsidiary actually filed for bankruptcy. so i guess as the special inspector general at the top says, you know, we kind of expect treasury to be looking out for the taxpayers. we funded the bailout of these companies by holding a line on
excessive pay, and apparently, according to this report, that does not appear to be the case. >> and in a sign of changing times, i was on a plane last night coming back from new orleans, and i did like a little informal survey, just walking down the aisle. it seemed about three to one, people were either on e-readers some kind of tablet as opposed to actually have a book or a magazine. and barnes & noble is now going to close dozens more stores. >> yeah, and it's really sad, and personally i love barnes & noble, i love going there. there's one around the corner from where i live. but apparently they're going to shut up to a third of their bricks and mortar stores over the next decade. they'll end up with about 450 to 500 stores in ten years' time from now. that is down from the 689 physical stores that it has at the moment. so it evens out to, chris, about 20 stores closed yearly over that period. just to give you a bit of background here, over the last decade, barnes & noble has balanced an average annual closing rate of about 15 stores, but also 30 openings each year
through 2009, which is kind of interesting. but you know what, it is a sign of the times and, remember, its rival, borders, had to begin liquidating all of its stores nationwide in 2011. so, you know, i hope barnes & noble can hold out as long as it possibly can. >> cnbc's mouandy drury, thank u very much. it's not just airlines tacking on extra charges these days. "usa today" has five hidden hotel fees you should watch for this year. baggage holding charges. you could now pay two bucks a bag to hold your luggage if it's too early to check in. mini bar restocking fees, so you're paying for the pretzels or the vodka, but then you have to pay to have the fridge stocked again, wi-fi. it may say free, but that's just for basics, like checking e-mail, but if you want to stream movies, for example, they might charge you. more hotels are charging early departure fees. so if you say, i'm going to stay five days, and only stay four. and read the fine print if you have to cancel your stay, because now cancellation charges are getting tougher too.
[ man ] ring ring... progresso this reduced sodium soup says it may help lower cholesterol, how does it work? you just have to eat it as part of your heart healthy diet. step 1. eat the soup. all those veggies and beans, that's what may help lower your cholesterol and -- well that's easy [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup.
new reports this morning that the next deadline for raising the nation's borrowing limit may not come up until august if the senate passes the debt ceiling bill this week. but republicans increasingly believe that the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts in the sequester are going to happen come march 1st. >> we think these sequesters will happen, because the democrats have opposed our efforts to replace those cuts with others and they've offered no alternatives. >> house speaker john boehner recently told "the wall street journal" that the sequester, quote, is as much leverage as we're going to get. but does the gop actually stand to lose more than it gains? i'm joined by "washington post" columnist, and msnbc policy analyst, ezra klein, who has written about this. good morning, ezra. >> good morning. >> in one of your columns, you wrote that republicans are wrong to think that the sequester gives them leverage. what's your reasoning? >> it's just become a somewhat bizarre conversation. look, you have to go back. the sequester, it's a very
weird, kind of boring word. it comes out of the debt ceiling deal in 2011 and it was the backup to the supercommittee. and way it was designed, it was originally supposed to be half taxes and half spending cuts. so both sides would be terrified of letting it happen, and because they were so terrified of letting it happen, they would come to a deal. the point of the sequester was to get the two sides to a deal. but republicans wouldn't allow tax increases, even in the sequester. and so they made this weird deal with democrats. and they said, okay, the sequester has to be all spending cuts. but because we're not giving you any taxes, they can mostly be spending cuts you don't mind and that we really hate. so half of the sequester, a full half of it is defense. that is a huge, huge cut to defense. but it's actually worse than that for republicans. medicaid is completely protected from the sequester. social security, completely protected. most low-income programs, completely protected. medicaid beneficiaries, completely protected. veterans benefits, completely protected. pell grants, completely protected. so the sequester is these large spending cuts, but they mostly
protect the core democratic priorities, and they concentration incredibly heavily on the spending republicans care about most. and that is because republicans cut this deal in order to not have tax increases in the sequester. so the idea that republicans can trade the democrats for a new sequester that has spending cuts democrats prefer, is ludicrous. the only thing that could trade the sequester for is something that includes tax increases, because the whole point of the sequester in the first place was, they couldn't find spending cuts democrats liked better. >> and in fact, talking points memo argues that gop leaders have changed their tune since they lost the election. >> oh, yeah. >> here's what they wrote. "the contradictory posture suggesting that gop leaders are fronting for conference conservatives who are resttive about their leader's failure to force democrats to accept more cuts to federal spending, it's also a thinly veiled bluff." is it? >> yeah, you might remember hearing in the election that
president obama was haollowing out the military, they were going to prevent the hundreds of millions of cuts that president obama was going to put in. these were not new cuts we were talking about. this is all about the sequester, which is a policy that paul ryan voted for as part of the budget control act. republicans from paul ryan to mitt romney all the way on down spent most of the election in 2012 arguing that the sequester would be a complete disaster, because of what it would do to the military. now they're saying, after they lost the election and after the retreat, that absolutely, they don't mind the sequester at all, it's no big deal, they're happy to let it happen if democrats don't move. in that way, it's become a somewhat transparent bluff, which doesn't mean the bluff won't be called and we won't have the sequester. one thing i should say about the sequester, it's bad policy. >> what do you think is going to happen? >> i don't think it will happen for very long. i think it might happen for a year or two. but i think it's bad policy. the cuts are dumb. we should have a mixture of cutting breaks and fixing loopholes and smarter spending. the thing about the sequester, it's very blunt, it's very
idiotic, and if it goes into effect, it's a huge failure on the part of republicans in washington. >> ezra klein, always good to see you. thanks, ezra. today's tweet of the day comes from former labor secretary, robert reich. "there is one reason and one reason only why the gop now supports immigration reform. 70% of latinos voted for obama." but it's not just latinos who would benefit from immigration reform and richard lui will join me to explain after this. need a tow or lock your keys in the car, geico's emergency roadside assistance is there 24/7. oh dear, i got a flat tire. hmmm. uh... yeah, can you find a take where it's a bit more dramatic on that last line, yeah? yeah i got it right here. someone help me!!! i have a flat tire!!! well it's good. good for me. what do you think? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
in just a few hours, president obama will be in las vegas to push for immigration reform. watching closely will be the estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the u.s. more than half came from mexico. the pew hispanic center says around 55 to 60% of all illegal immigrants are from mexico. but what about the rest? richard lui is here with a drilldown of the other ethnic groups. and often, people really don't even think about it.
>> right. the other half of illegal or unauthorized immigrants aren't from mexico. 4 million people are from other countries. mexico was number one, but followed by four other latin america countries. you have el valve dor, guatemala, honduras, and ecuador. then you have vietnam, korea, and china. that's why for americans, immigration reform resonates from them. of all unauthorized immigrants, up to 15% are from asian countries, says pew, where almost three times its population percentage. and when it comes to children who are brought here by their parents without authorization or dreamers, over 100,000 of them are from asian countries. now, immigration controversy is centuries long for this group. the japanese internment during world war ii seared the issue of what citizenship meant into generations of japanese americans. and the only law ever to ban a single country from immigration,
the chinese exclusion act of 1882 did the very same. congress issued a formal apology just last year. the irish community knows well the fight for immigration reform too. in 2006, they rallied to legalize up toll 50,000 unauthorized irish immigrants. the late ted kennedy even spoke to unauthorized irish groups and said this. "the way that immigration legislation was developed worked in a very dramatic and significant way against the irish." unauthorized irish, asians, and latinos have been coming to the u.s. to set up home for centuries. and today, over 60% of unauthorized adults have been here ten years or more. and chris, half are part of families. and so for this eclectic group, they hope 2013 is their year. >> it does feel like change is coming. thank you so much, richard. that wraps up this hour of "jansing & co.." i'm chris jansing. thomas roberts is up next. when what you just bought,
when you're dancing, your partner is holding you. so, his hand would have been right in the spot that i had the shingles. no tango. no rhumba. you can't be touched. for more of the inside story, visit shinglesinfo.com let's see if walmart's low price guarantee can make you the mvp of savings. look at that price. wow! walmart lowers thousands of prices every week. if you find a lower advertised price, they'll match it at the register. no way! yeah! touchdown! ready? get out! that's the walmart low price guarantee! see for yourself! bring in your last receipt, see how much you can save. see for yourself! get great prices on everything you need for your game time party. like rotel diced tomatoes and popcorn, indiana original kettle corn backed by walmart's low price guarantee. hi, everyone. i'm thomas roberts.
topping our agenda today, just hours away from the president's first major policy speech of his second term, the white house and congress both jockeying for control in the immigration debate. at this moment, the president on air force one, winging his way to las vegas, where he's going to use the bully pulpit to get on record with his own vision for comprehensive immigration reform. the president is expected to embrace the blueprint unveiled by the bipartisan immigration ink. just yesterday, this was a move designed to get the jump on the president's big speech. however, today, president obama will also reportedly call for a more progressive approach for dealing with the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants. >> there will be some differences between ourselves and the president, but i think we could iron out any of those. >> i think while he will show this is his idea with where we should be, he will work with us to produce a good, strong, bipartisan bill. we cannot pass this bill if either democrats are opposed or republicans are opposed. >> so where does this discussion really fork between 1600